|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2005 11:18:57 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
THANK YOU HBunch! I will take you up on that, BUT I may change my entry though.
Rose |
Rose, when you email it to me, make sure you send the original, the version you are thinking about submitting and the editing steps you took to get to the final result. It's ok if you do end up changing it, as long as you know that my very educated opinion on the legality only applies to the one you send me, and then you'll know just in case you do end up submitting it in the end. I'll be around all day tomorrow and checking mail often, so you should get a fairly quick response.
~Heather~ |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 11:22:09 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
THANK YOU HBunch! I will take you up on that, BUT I may change my entry though.
Rose |
Rose, when you email it to me, make sure you send the original, the version you are thinking about submitting and the editing steps you took to get to the final result. It's ok if you do end up changing it, as long as you know that my very educated opinion on the legality only applies to the one you send me, and then you'll know just in case you do end up submitting it in the end. I'll be around all day tomorrow and checking mail often, so you should get a fairly quick response.
~Heather~ |
No problem. Thanks! You're a doll!
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/31/2005 01:34:00 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by rex:
I just read all that???? |
Better than me... I stopped at about 50% and decideto follow the rest of the thread first. |
|
|
|
12/31/2005 01:50:46 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
If you have to ask for pre-validation then you know you are borderline.
I say live and learn. If you get DQ'd then you know for next time - and what have you really lost? There's always another contest next week.... |
WRONG. It doesn't mean you are borderline. It simply means there are questions on the rules and how they are stated. AS YOU can read from this very thread and others, there are MANY who are confused by them.
AND what do you mean "what have you really lost"??? In my case, I spend money on props. I spend a lot of my precious time shooting and researching ideas, not to mention the cost of being a member. Let's also bring up the fact that there are punishments in place for so many dq's in such and such a time period. So you can lose plenty, in my case anyway.
Hey, you know, I am a competition buff. I love it and want to do it right and be legal about it in every way. I only ask that when I have questions, they can and will be "validated" and not "opinionated" by council. I just discussed this with my husband too, and he agrees. If council gives you a definate, then do it. If they don't, then don't lose your anonymity for the entry. He says this because he sees how much time and effort I put into my entries, not to mention the joy it gives me to compete and research good ideas. He doesn't want to see that fade away, or the $$$.
Rose
Rose |
RIGHT! If you want pre-validation there is something you have done in the photo that you aren't sure if it fits within the rules or not, hence borderline.
If you don't understand a rule why do you have to show your entry, couldn't you just ask a question about the rule? All of the images in this and the advanced editing post have been examples and have nothing to do with current entries.
How much money you spend on props, gear, models etc had NOTHING to do with whether or not your photo has too much editing in it or not. Why would you have to scrap your entire project becasue you can't edit it as much as you want? If your photo can't stand on it's own without so much editing you may be in violation of the rules maybe you should re-think your priorities, this is a photography contest after all.
Just to clear up any confusion, I'm only talking about the idea of pre-validation for photos, I'm not discussing whether or not the rules are clear enough or whether they need to be changed. |
You are still wrong. LOL....Look, not to be nasty, but I think you are speaking about something you didn't read elsewhere. I DID ask questions. I had one person say "yes, go for it" and another that said "no, I wouldn't, not if.....". This is where the confusion arose.
Secondly, my question specifically was on hair. Lightening the hair with dodge. Can it be done? One person says yes, if the hair is already light, you can dodge it to enhance it. My problem is that the hair IS light, but it isn't light in the original because it came out too dark and you can't see the lightness of the hair until you do a gamma lightening on the photo, which IS allowed. Therefore, council would have to do the gamma on the photo FIRST before they could see the hair was light to begin with. AND will they do that? Or will they just see the original, see no light hair, and then dq it for light hair added.
So it isn't all cut and dry and borderline as to "Too much editing". It was a legitimate question, which then led to gradients in the sky, dodging and burning waterlines and forest trees. BUT, if you can enhance what IS already there, but can't be seen without first lightening the original in gamma, can it be considered legal, OR does that lightness have to be seen in the original at first glance. AND we are not talking about adding a major element here either, but a simple small sweep of a hair line. It makes a big difference in the shot for the shot I have intended, so I needed to know. ALL answers were conflicting, and I am NOT going to let something as simple as a small part of the hairlline dq me. I would rather reshoot. BUT it is NOT borderline to rules or me wanting to over process a photo. It is asking for a distinction of the rules in this particular instance and one I rarely even use. Forgive ME for wanting to be creative, as many seem to be with colored smoke and turning black backgrounds to green and it being ok. LOL...ALL I want to do is sweep a peice of hair and don't want some yahoo asking it to be validated so I can lose the time and effort over that one little peice IF it is not allowed.
AND my reference to money spent on props and gear and whathaveyou had to do with your reference to "what would you lose by a dq anyway" and it did NOT have to do with the editing process.
I also dont have to scrap my whole project. I actually still have it in. Just not the same editing done. I just would prefer to have put in the original edited version. However, I thought of another idea now and found a model to work with, so I am going for that instead and see what happens. From there I will decide on the two.
Rose |
1. I didn't realize we were talking specifically about your mouse picture (since that's NOT what this thread is about - what thread are YOU reading?) I thought the discussion we were having was about validation and whether it is needed on this site or not in order to eliminate some of the confusion about the advanced editing rules. My opinion is pre-validation is not needed and would be a waste of time.
2. I don't think I understand what you think "borderline" means. By your own account you have gotten conflicting information from different site counsel members on a photo you weren't trying to overprocess - they are the judges of what is legal and what isn't. If half say yes and half say no that sounds pretty borderline to me. My point was and still is, you would only ask for validation if you thought there was a possibility you could be DQ'd, otherwise why would you ask? Hence, regardless of intent - borderline.
Please read my previous comments as an opinion on whether or not to have pre-validation or not, not whether I think your specific photo is legal or not.
As stated earlier by the SC, if you read the rules and do your best to follow them but in good faith made a mistake you won't be punushed for it. So again, what do you really have to lose - there is always another contest next week. |
|
|
|
12/31/2005 08:57:53 AM · #130 |
Megatherian, in case you are unaware from lack of reading this thread below, you will see that I was already asked to cease this subject. Why are you egging it on to continue? I am using HBunch as she suggested, and the photos have all been sent to her. Besides, you are again confused. To answer you.....
1. We are NOT talking about my mouse photo, and I will ask you now where YOU are reading. I was talking about the original question I posed in another thread intitled "question on editing" that I started. The mouse photo was used as an example because one was asked for to get a better idea of what I was talking about for my inquiry. In that photo I used eyes, but my original question was on hair.
2. The yeses and no's I got were not from council, but from other DPC members in open forum. One may have been on council, but mostly council just said to send it in for opinions, and my history on this thread shows I will not send it to council who enter the same contest only to receive opinions and give up my anonymity to those entrants. HBunch will see what I mean. It is too difficult to be accurate completely in my description of inquiry publicly without giving away the entire photo. AND, I reiterate, it is NOT borderline. It is only a question on how to understand a particular rule's wordage - in which is obvious by this thread and others that it is not so easily dicernable.
3. As to punishments and next weeks competitions at hand, it is my perogative, and not yours, as to if I want to be so flippant with the decisions I make on my entries. I do not care to just say "oh the hell with it, I just won't enter" or "I will just lose the feel of my photo entirely and use basic editing" WHEN all I am asking for is a clarification on rule wordage. I pay money to be on this site, and to enter contests. The competition is what I thrive for here, and not the agitation. It means more to me then it obviously does to you. There lies my particular fun in the (DPC) "Digital Photography Contest" site. I am not here to sell, buy, or just for forum usage, etc. I will participate in all aspects, and learn along the way, but I am here and pay for the "privledge" of entering the contests. So what is lost to me, besides money and time, is the majority of the reason I pay to be here.
Some say I take things to seriously. Well, I have seen many a thread where others take things just as seriously as I do. Look at graphicfunk and how even in sickness he took the time to make some points he felt needed to be said. Is that said by graphicfunk flippantly, with no regard to how he feels about DPC? I think not. Not only that, but some have found this thread very helpful, and so have I by other members. I do NOT take kindly to being patronized in those efforts by just being told to not care, another contest begins again next week. The contest I am working hard for is NOW, and not next week. Next week may also bring a new plethera of life to a shot I do in which I may need no questions be asked.
Now, if you want to continue this, do as the council says and open up your own thread. I am and was perfectly satisfied to end it when I did, and use the gracious offer of HBunch to solve the issue. BUT if you want to continue to keep the conversation open along these lines, then you have to start a new thread, per council's advisement.
Rose
Originally posted by Megatherian:
1. I didn't realize we were talking specifically about your mouse picture (since that's NOT what this thread is about - what thread are YOU reading?) I thought the discussion we were having was about validation and whether it is needed on this site or not in order to eliminate some of the confusion about the advanced editing rules. My opinion is pre-validation is not needed and would be a waste of time.
2. I don't think I understand what you think "borderline" means. By your own account you have gotten conflicting information from different site counsel members on a photo you weren't trying to overprocess - they are the judges of what is legal and what isn't. If half say yes and half say no that sounds pretty borderline to me. My point was and still is, you would only ask for validation if you thought there was a possibility you could be DQ'd, otherwise why would you ask? Hence, regardless of intent - borderline.
Please read my previous comments as an opinion on whether or not to have pre-validation or not, not whether I think your specific photo is legal or not.
As stated earlier by the SC, if you read the rules and do your best to follow them but in good faith made a mistake you won't be punushed for it. So again, what do you really have to lose - there is always another contest next week. |
|
|
|
|
12/31/2005 05:55:35 PM · #131 |
I think the suggestion I made for someone to act as a sort of a chairman of SC was misunderstood by some of the posters who commented on it. Perhaps my idea is not as close to graphicfunk's as I thought it was. My idea was that someone would act more like a corresponding secretary, or a "facilitater". Not a czar or a strongman that would have decision making authority, but more like a coordinator. Remember that I said the person should be responsible to a majority of the SC and not the other way around. It would not be someone to make the decisions so much as someone to make sure that the decisions do get made, and that they get communicated.
I have experienced personally, and seen many others go thru the same, frustration when a serious question is asked and there is no clear and official answer given. I understand that specific situations cannot be resolved without all the relevant info, such as a request for validation of an image without seeing the original. But there are also less controversial issues that could be addressed without any hassle if only there was a voice to give the answer. Often there are 2 or 3 SC members that are willing to give their person opinion, which may not entirely agree, but never a conclusive result to the point raised.
To go a little further on the idea of mandatory turnover on the SC -- I think that someone serving endlessly on SC is tantamount to the czar that many find distasteful. People who have been on there for a long time are normally going to have more knowledge and experience than the newcomers. Especially at the beginning of their terms, the new members will defer to the judgements of the longer serving members. That is only human nature. But over time that same scenerio will eventually develope into a few SC members having so much influence that others will begin to think along the lines of "he/she knows so much about how SC works that we couldn't get along without them. I hope they never think about leaving SC." When you get to that point you have a czar, or a few strongmen.
I have seen the concept of shared leadership devolve into a "czar-ship" about a half a dozen times in real life, non-online, situations. The one thing that all of those had in common was that no one perceived the change had taken place until the "strongman" had established many alliances and was very firmly entrenched. Persaverance and a dominating personality are usually the enabling tools for such an emergence of power. Things like wisdom, courage, and real leadership skills may be incidental passengers but are usually not included. A systematic and impersonal method of forced turnover is likely the best way to avoid the unintentional crowning of an unofficial czar.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2006 12:14:42 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
when does a photo cease to be a "photo" and become a "photo illustration"?
Seems to me like that's what's really being asked. |
Why, when it illustrates something of course... |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 08:53:48 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Di:
If they're still here there much be a redeeming quality...
WHAT is keeping them here? if they cant answer wiht a positive statement... then maybe this site isnt for them
|
On the flip side, I used to be on the SC, I used to enter a lot of the challenges, I used to spent a lot of time and effort working towards more encompassing rules that would allow the spirit of photography to thrive within the scope of standard professional photographic tools, while trying to limit the more digitally created and non-photographic images.
But as no progress ever was made and fundamental, basic tools were left out of the basic rules (like spot removal) or industry standard techniques like multi-image bracketing are still banned from the advanced rules, I left.
I don't spend my time here. I don't contribute much value any more in the forums (though you could argue if I ever did). I didn't renew my membership. I don't enter the contests any more.
I'd directly attribute that to my increasing frustration with the rules and the fact that my basic workflow isn't even allowed in the advanced category in a lot of cases - and I'd happily argue that every single one of those images was a true photograph and not some image created from nothing in photoshop, or a terrible image that was somehow fixed.
So I'd agree. This isn't the site for me any more. Which is a shame and why I spent a couple of years trying to bring it along with me.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 08:55:55 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Di:
If they're still here there much be a redeeming quality...
WHAT is keeping them here? if they cant answer wiht a positive statement... then maybe this site isnt for them
|
On the flip side, I used to be on the SC, I used to enter a lot of the challenges, I used to spent a lot of time and effort working towards more encompassing rules that would allow the spirit of photography to thrive within the scope of standard professional photographic tools, while trying to limit the more digitally created and non-photographic images.
But as no progress ever was made and fundamental, basic tools were left out of the basic rules (like spot removal) or industry standard techniques like multi-image bracketing are still banned from the advanced rules, I left.
I don't spend my time here. I don't contribute much value any more in the forums (though you could argue if I ever did). I didn't renew my membership. I don't enter the contests any more.
I'd directly attribute that to my increasing frustration with the rules and the fact that my basic workflow isn't even allowed in the advanced category in a lot of cases - and I'd happily argue that every single one of those images was a true photograph and not some image created from nothing in photoshop, or a terrible image that was somehow fixed.
So I'd agree. This isn't the site for me any more. Which is a shame and why I spent a couple of years trying to bring it along with me. |
I'm tired of trying to get it up to standards as well. Wanna start our own site gordon? I have a great model in mind! ;o)
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:05:51 PM · #135 |
It's a sad fact that many photogs "outgrow" DPC. Perhaps that's the natural order of things. DPC is conducive to bringing new talent along very quickly, but the site often cannot keep pace with the growth of very talented individuals. Note, I'm still here, LOL.
I used to think, gee wouldn't it be great if DPC allowed panoramas, multiple-exposure astrophotography, HDR, and a host of other things that are currently outside even the advanced rules. It's possible that someday we may, but I too gave up trying to move the site faster than it can move, given the resources available.
DPC serves a very valuable purpose, for the beginning to advanced intermediate photographer. For the seasoned pro, it seems restrictive. Do give it time, it will grow and change, but it will continue to be one of the most refreshing sites on the net.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:13:15 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's a sad fact that many photogs "outgrow" DPC. Perhaps that's the natural order of things. DPC is conducive to bringing new talent along very quickly, but the site often cannot keep pace with the growth of very talented individuals. Note, I'm still here, LOL.
I used to think, gee wouldn't it be great if DPC allowed panoramas, multiple-exposure astrophotography, HDR, and a host of other things that are currently outside even the advanced rules. It's possible that someday we may, but I too gave up trying to move the site faster than it can move, given the resources available.
DPC serves a very valuable purpose, for the beginning to advanced intermediate photographer. For the seasoned pro, it seems restrictive. Do give it time, it will grow and change, but it will continue to be one of the most refreshing sites on the net. |
When I give up is when you won't see me around anymore. ;o)
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:36:36 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's a sad fact that many photogs "outgrow" DPC. Perhaps that's the natural order of things. DPC is conducive to bringing new talent along very quickly, but the site often cannot keep pace with the growth of very talented individuals. Note, I'm still here, LOL.
I used to think, gee wouldn't it be great if DPC allowed panoramas, multiple-exposure astrophotography, HDR, and a host of other things that are currently outside even the advanced rules. It's possible that someday we may, but I too gave up trying to move the site faster than it can move, given the resources available.
DPC serves a very valuable purpose, for the beginning to advanced intermediate photographer. For the seasoned pro, it seems restrictive. Do give it time, it will grow and change, but it will continue to be one of the most refreshing sites on the net. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now, this is very well expressed. It is a fact that there are many frustrated photographers who are trying to fit in or remain. This is evidenced by the multidue of postings and the S/C turnover. The place grows but this growing factor is not directly addressed.
In my personal list of frustrations is the idea that it is a simple matter to redo basic editing rules to allow one of the most primitive functions: spot and artifact removal. This can be spelled out very succint without ambiguities.
The second is to maintain the a.e. as is but to have a third set to accomodate very advanced editing. Challenges for this digital editing can be once a month, quarterly or whatever. This window is certain to appease and keep advance members that continue to peel off.
Third, like, we are doing right now, I believe the S/C needs at least a ceremonial head so as to funnel any changes. Right now, we make inquiries and receive some answers but each s/c member is sort of on their own. If some share the passion for improvement they comment or answer and those that are happy with the status quo remain in the background.
The other problem is image validation. You only need two members to validate a b.e. image. If the rules are well laid out there is no need to involve many of them.
Now, if the rules are carefully crafted then even two members should be able to valiate even an a.e. if the image remains within the written rules.
I see all of these conditions of degree. Why not eliminate the degrees and employ them in the digital editing challenges. This will save many s/c members time. Look, if the rules are spelled out well in black and white, then validating is not so much a judememental practice. You go by the book.
This is how I see it and this may be one reason where one counsil head can coordinate with the others to bring about this minor overhaul. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:42:30 PM · #138 |
| Given the SC bashing that is currently going on tonight, I can't think of a good reason for someone to step up as "head" of it and be the one to take the brunt of most of the complaining. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:11:50 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by A1275:
Given the SC bashing that is currently going on tonight, I can't think of a good reason for someone to step up as "head" of it and be the one to take the brunt of most of the complaining. |
That's easy. Let the biggest complainer step up to get a taste of their own medicine.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:15:08 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by A1275:
Given the SC bashing that is currently going on tonight, I can't think of a good reason for someone to step up as "head" of it and be the one to take the brunt of most of the complaining. |
That's easy. Let the biggest complainer step up to get a taste of their own medicine. |
Good lord noooooooooooooooooo............we would all get suspended. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:20:05 AM · #141 |
| I think it is time to lock this thread. it has outlived its usefulness of there was ever one. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:32:03 AM · #142 |
Personally, I do believe this thread still has life and a great deal of usefulness. It would be nice if we as a collective had a "Suggestion Box" where we could deposit ideas on a variety of topics and have these come up for discussion.
There is always room for improvement in any venue, and DPC is no different. Too often I see what seem to be wonderful ideas fall by the wayside, and sometimes feel we are cheating ourselves of potential growth.
Just a thought.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 10:35:54 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's a sad fact that many photogs "outgrow" DPC. Perhaps that's the natural order of things. DPC is conducive to bringing new talent along very quickly, but the site often cannot keep pace with the growth of very talented individuals. Note, I'm still here, LOL.
I used to think, gee wouldn't it be great if DPC allowed panoramas, multiple-exposure astrophotography, HDR, and a host of other things that are currently outside even the advanced rules. It's possible that someday we may, but I too gave up trying to move the site faster than it can move, given the resources available.
DPC serves a very valuable purpose, for the beginning to advanced intermediate photographer. For the seasoned pro, it seems restrictive. Do give it time, it will grow and change, but it will continue to be one of the most refreshing sites on the net. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now, this is very well expressed. It is a fact that there are many frustrated photographers who are trying to fit in or remain. This is evidenced by the multidue of postings and the S/C turnover. The place grows but this growing factor is not directly addressed.
In my personal list of frustrations is the idea that it is a simple matter to redo basic editing rules to allow one of the most primitive functions: spot and artifact removal. This can be spelled out very succint without ambiguities.
The second is to maintain the a.e. as is but to have a third set to accomodate very advanced editing. Challenges for this digital editing can be once a month, quarterly or whatever. This window is certain to appease and keep advance members that continue to peel off.
Third, like, we are doing right now, I believe the S/C needs at least a ceremonial head so as to funnel any changes. Right now, we make inquiries and receive some answers but each s/c member is sort of on their own. If some share the passion for improvement they comment or answer and those that are happy with the status quo remain in the background.
The other problem is image validation. You only need two members to validate a b.e. image. If the rules are well laid out there is no need to involve many of them.
Now, if the rules are carefully crafted then even two members should be able to valiate even an a.e. if the image remains within the written rules.
I see all of these conditions of degree. Why not eliminate the degrees and employ them in the digital editing challenges. This will save many s/c members time. Look, if the rules are spelled out well in black and white, then validating is not so much a judememental practice. You go by the book.
This is how I see it and this may be one reason where one counsil head can coordinate with the others to bring about this minor overhaul. |
Maybe it shouldn't move. Maybe the correct goal is to actively discourage professional or accomplished photographers from entering challenges. If the rules were written in such a way to encourage the fullest range of participation then the overall quality might shift so much higher that it would actively discourage beginners from entering or learning on the site.
Widening the rules raises the bar but that also raises the barrier to entry for competition. If 200 professional photographers entered every challenge, would you want to enter on your first week with a camera ?
The goal of the site isn't to help people grow who've outgrown the basic levels that are encouraged here. Perhaps things are good the way they are and cater for those the site was originally intended to cater for. Widening and improving the rules could be seriously detrimental to the character of the place. As ever, you have to be careful what you wish for - you
might just get it. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 02:57:32 PM · #144 |
Posted by Gordon:
Maybe it shouldn't move. Maybe the correct goal is to actively discourage professional or accomplished photographers from entering challenges. If the rules were written in such a way to encourage the fullest range of participation then the overall quality might shift so much higher that it would actively discourage beginners from entering or learning on the site.
Widening the rules raises the bar but that also raises the barrier to entry for competition. If 200 professional photographers entered every challenge, would you want to enter on your first week with a camera ?
The goal of the site isn't to help people grow who've outgrown the basic levels that are encouraged here. Perhaps things are good the way they are and cater for those the site was originally intended to cater for. Widening and improving the rules could be seriously detrimental to the character of the place. As ever, you have to be careful what you wish for - you
might just get it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Very well put. It seems that when evolvement is halted a stasis sets in. Personally, I do not see a clear direction but rather a vague sense of movement wherein minor enhancements are added because an overhaul lacks the necessary vision or more precicely a general agreement.
Many see the problems ahead while others feel that things will take care of themselves with little intervention. This may be though I am not convinced.
This place holds the potential to be the stellar photographic site in the entire internet and attract beginners as well as the most accomplished photographers. This can be accomplished without changing the face of the site.
This is the reason I advocate three sets of editing rules as I described above in my recent post. Keep in mind that the heavy hitters or the top talent do not enjoy entering every challenge. Theirs is one of presenting high quality work. The beginners will still bathe in their weekly challenges until they are ready to move up.
I kid myself when earlier in this thread I said I wanted to rock the boat to attempt a rehashing of rules and procedures. It is now apparant that better photographers than me have already attempted this such as Gordon, Setzler and who knows how many others. They have all left the s/c because their vision failed to convince the majority. It may also be the wish of D&L to leave things as they are. I can certainly argue with the s/c but not with D&L because they where the one's that had the original vision to start this wonderful adventure. They have succeeded and I do not argue with success. If they feel that this is exactly what they want then all of these post are merely exercises in futility.
Being the gadfly that I am, I can see this site turning into a giant operation which can lure beginner and professional and keep them. A few major tweaks can generate enough income for the owners to quit their jobs and devote all their time to the site. Perhaps somewhere in the future this may come to past. I am fully aware of the original visions of the D&L. They goal has always been more noble than monetary, hence the opportunities for beginners via the registered users. They also took care of the member base by instituting the a.e.
Perhaps, the only thing they did not foresee was the stunning success and the eventual need to accomodate another sector of the member base: Those that continue to advance. All in all we are at least happy that we have what we have.
The only problem I see is that there is no one to vex with these ideas of change. Instead, we make a post and what we do is irritate the s/c and the majority of members that are happy with the status quo. Also add the fact that talk and free advise is cheap. Once you succeed in something there are people around you that tell you just how more successful you can be. Indeed, most suggestions are not only misguided but not required because the suggestor is not privy to the goals of the initiators. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 03:16:34 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
As ever, you have to be careful what you wish for - you might just get it. |
Amen. ;) |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 03:35:01 PM · #146 |
| I think basic and advanced should stay as they are, but it would be interesting to have an additional member category for no limits on editing. Maybe even have two levels of membership--one as it is, and one at a slightly higher price for adding the third challenge. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 04:12:31 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The other problem is image validation. You only need two members to validate a b.e. image. If the rules are well laid out there is no need to involve many of them.
Now, if the rules are carefully crafted then even two members should be able to valiate even an a.e. if the image remains within the written rules. |
i don't understand this. if the SC is, as so many claim, a group of people who have their own ideas and speak with their own voices, why would only two of those voices suddenly become sufficient to make a dq decision?
EVERY ruleset (in dpc and in life) has room for interpretation. the reason the SC votes on disqualifications as a whole is to try to find a balance in the "grey areas" of the dpc rulesets. no matter what we write or you all write, there will ALWAYS be grey areas that need to be debated.
perhaps a better question is this: if it's possible to simplify the rulesets to a point where only two people need to vote on them (which i don't understand, as therein lies the possibility of a tie vote), why would participants break the rules? wouldn't they be easy enough for everyone to understand?
i understand if you think that the basic editing rules are too restrictive. if you want to be able to remove dust spots and artifacts in basic editing, that's a valid website suggestion. i would recommend two things, however:
1) look back through the forum archives and see how many times this has been discussed in the past. many of the arguments for and against it remain as valid as they are today.
(you should also note that the spark of the ENTIRE advanced ruleset came from a demand from the public to be able to spot edit. the "major elements" clause of the advanced ruleset was inserted to keep people from overusing that spot editing power.)
2) if you have a suggestion as simple as the above (allowing spot edits in basic editing), state it simply without cloaking it in such heavy, melodramatic language. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:30:46 PM · #148 |
Gordon has neatly summarized why the definitions of the existing editing classes are so resistant to change. The risk in changing them is that in moving the skill level higher to keep pace with with the current group of participants, we cut off the flow of new talent because the level of the current participants is too daunting.
Adding a third level of participation with less restriction is another alternative. It has been discussed before, but not in the recent past. This something that the SC would have input to, but the ultimate decisions on the "roadmap" for the future of the site lie with the admins.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:48:30 PM · #149 |
| It seems that this qoute by Garth from waynes world is apropos "We fear change." |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 05:49:06 PM · #150 |
I've always felt dust removal should be allowed in basic challenges.
*shrug*
That's just me...
I hate having a superb shot but not being able to enter it because it's got a spot on it. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:00:42 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:00:42 PM EDT.
|
